Opinion
No. 12–1633.
2013-10-23
STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Matthew Eugene BROWN, Plaintiff–Appellant.
I respectfully dissent. Dr. Harre was asked to do a medical assessment on the child, which she followed with a detailed eight-page report. Toward the end of the report, she wrote an “assessment” that summarized her findings. Dr. Harre found the child to be “consistent” in her reporting, which is an accurate reflection of what the child repeatedly revealed to her during the evaluation. I do not find the additional phrase “that an investigation is clearly warranted” to be equivalent to stating “the child is telling the truth,” or an implied opinion regarding A.T.'s credibility. Rather, it is a recommendation for a follow-up to what the doctor had observed in her evaluation. Dr. Harre also encouraged the mother and father to seek additional support and counseling as needed for themselves and for the child, which supports the conclusion this phrase is meant as a request for further action, rather than an opinion that either the abuse occurred or that A.T. was telling the truth. For the district court to deny striking the report and testimony of Dr. Harre as to these recommendations was not an abuse of discretion, nor did it cross the “fine line” of commenting on a witness's credibility. See Myers, 382 N.W.2d at 97–98 (the expert's express opinion the victim did not fantasize the rape was a comment on the witness's credibility, and thus “crossed that fine but essential line between an opinion ... and ... a conclusion concerning defendant's legal guilt.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Chancy, 391 N.W.2d at 234 (stating Myers “involved a direct comment by an expert on the credibility of a witness, a matter generally reserved for the trier of fact”). For this reason, I would affirm the defendant's conviction.